How a teacher in any serious capacity can then say that one's view of Vedanta and Dzogchen are interchangeable is concerning to say the least.

I'm not sure he was saying that the views are interchangeable. My interpretation is that if one has a strong intuition or affinity for the "God" principle of Vedanta, one can use it as a guide. It has a certain "flavor" that he thinks would benefit a lot of western students. Presumably he would take care to not let me fall into eternalizing or reifying it, if he sees me veering that way.

This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa

Just for a different perspective, John Tettemer, the early 20th century Catholic theologian I referenced earlier, couldn’t reconcile his non-dual experience with the idea of original sin. Contrary to Catholic orthodoxy he realized we are never apart from Truth. We just don’t know it. Catholicism says Adam’s fall makes us apart from God. The nature of “God” was not the sticking point that made him leave the Church.

If he had the same experience several decades later he might have connected the dots to say he had a Buddhist experience. However 80-90 years ago people didn’t know about Mahamudra or Dzogchen.

1. No traditional Buddhist sect, Tibetan or otherwise, considers deities to be fictional. (DW post/Seeker242)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me. Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post/by ?)
4. Shentong] is the completely pure system that,
Through mainly teaching the luminous aspect of the mind, holds that the fruitions--kayas and wisdoms--exist on their own accord. (Karmapa XIII)

Does this then mean there are countless gods, as the individual natures of countless sentient being's minds, that do not actually create anything? That would be the consequence.

Why call it a god at that point?

I don't really know. I have my guesses but don't intend to pollute this forum with them. Why call it an "all-creating king?"

Because all of supposed creation spawns from a failure to accurately apprehend the dynamic display of your own mind.

The collective error of countless sentient beings ends up coalescing into this apparent universe.

Thus the mind apparently creates all without actually creating anything. As described in the Guhyagarbha Tantra:

The wonder of it! This marvelous, astounding event/reality (Dharma): From that which involves no origination, everything originates; and in that very origination, there is no origination! The wonder of it! In it's very enduring, there is no enduring! The wonder of it! In it's very cessation, there is no cessation!

Out of curiosity, how do the pro-syncretic individuals contributing to this thread propose to synthesize whatever form of Christianity you are championing with a system such as Dzogchen?

How are the two similar in terms of the principles they champion?

No entity or principle survives the path of Dzogchen. One would think you would want this god to be affirmed at the end of the day, yet Dzogchen would rob you of this, as it compromises every attribute of its own process in the end.

I think that ChNN made it clear, even though some people have a habit of trying to redefine or clarify what the master said.

"God" = kunjed gyalpo. I think ChNN is speaking to Dzogchen practitioners who were raised in a Christian culture.

Though some may dispute this, ChNN has even said that you can use Jesus Christ as the focus in guru yoga as long as you have the correct Dzogchen understanding; though he admits to not knowing why someone would do this. However, he was raised Buddhist, and circumstances for someone raised Christian but encountering Dzogchen are different. ChNN has said that Dzogchen is beyond Buddhism and has been taught in other worlds, though in this world it has been taught by Buddhists. I am reminded of ChNN's constant teaching that Dzogchen is beyond limitations but we are to work within our own capacity and limitations.

All I know is this: when you tell a naive student that s/he is loved unconditionally by a force that transcends space and time, and you send them looking back in the "I" direction, sometimes they end up in a vicinity that makes it much easier to guide them. Sure, some will fall into eternalism, but that's where a good guide comes in handy.

This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.
--Gampopa

Does this then mean there are countless gods, as the individual natures of countless sentient being's minds, that do not actually create anything? That would be the consequence.

Why call it a god at that point?

I don't really know. I have my guesses but don't intend to pollute this forum with them. Why call it an "all-creating king?"

Because all of supposed creation spawns from a failure to accurately apprehend the dynamic display of your own mind.

In "The Supreme Source" it is explained like this:
"Let us analyze the meaning of the name Kunjed Gyalpo. The literal translation, "all-creating king," is really a synonym for "Samantabhadra," a term widely used in Dzogchen teachings. The first word, Kunjed, "all-creating" or "all-making," may lead one to think of a universal creator, an entity that generates the world through an act of will; however, it must absolutely not be interpreted in this way. Its true meaning denotes our primordial state, that by its own nature contains all the qualities of self-perfection together with the capacity to manifest them without needing to create them, nor rely on any effort. Think of a mirror: the capacity to reflect is a natural quality of the mirror itself, and it is only thanks to this condition that diverse images can appear on its surface uninterruptedly."

“The path of the supreme yoga it is not the path of accomplished sages of the past. Whoever enters onto the path of the sages of the past will end up gripped by the sicknesses of the path - meditation, attachment, and exertion.”Thig le drug pa.

“Everything of the universe of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arises as the enlightened energy of the one self-perfected Natural Presence. But these teachers still mistakenly teach that disciples should fabricate enlightenment by applying discipline, renunciation, interruption, purification and transformation”.

No clue. But I have heard it, often very strongly stated, from every single Vajrayana teacher I have received teachings from. ChNN was particularly adamant here. More than once, too.

Garchen Rinpoche says that disparaging non-Buddhist traditions is just as pernicious as disparaging a Buddhist vessel.

But nobody on this thread was disparaging the views of tirthikas except insofar as to point out that they do not lead to liberation. That cannot be considered disparagement. If people were saying, “those idiot Christians who aren’t smart enough to understand the middle way” or something similar, then that would be disparagement. But nothing of the sort was being said, only that other religions hold views incompatible with that of the Dharma.

I seem to remember something or other about the belief in God being the mark of the crass stupidity of witless men.

BTW, here's a quote from Dudjom Rinpoche:

If you have genuine contempt for a non-Buddhist religion (to say nothing of other Buddhist tenet systems), you have committed the sixth downfall.

Do you have a source for that quote? In all the other explanations of the sixth root samaya it’s been explained as deriding other Buddhist tenet systems (eg Hinayana).

Generally the tone of this thread has not been to disparage non-Buddhist systems, though as you say I may have missed that comment.

It’s clear that In this sub-discussion on disparagement the issue is in what context, and what kind of statements constitute disparagement. I contend that, amongst a group of self-professed Buddhists and Dzogchen practitioners, and in a discussion of different paths’views, which this is, pointing out that tirthika dharmas constitute wrong view is in no way disparagement. If we can’t even get to that point then we are going to have difficulty having *any* discussion of view in any context at all.

Anyways, I highly recommend that those of you who are conflating tirthika views with dzogchen to please read The Mind Beyond Papers by Elias Capriles as he succinctly and painstakingly details out the differences of views and results. Most gnostic and advaita vedanta "realizations" are simply the formless realms, as well as the alayavijnana.

I for one believe Garab Dorje's 3 statements as being sufficient enough. Without Direct Introduction there is no path and result. So these other systems have no Direct Introduction, thus no path or result. Seems pretty simple. Then again this board thrives on circular thinking.

Anyways, I highly recommend that those of you who are conflating tirthika views with dzogchen to please read The Mind Beyond Papers by Elias Capriles as he succinctly and painstakingly details out the differences of views and results. Most gnostic and advaita vedanta "realizations" are simply the formless realms, as well as the alayavijnana.

That sounds REALLY interesting, too bad volume one is like $300!
Sadly, not available through my local library.

Anyways, I highly recommend that those of you who are conflating tirthika views with dzogchen to please read The Mind Beyond Papers by Elias Capriles as he succinctly and painstakingly details out the differences of views and results. Most gnostic and advaita vedanta "realizations" are simply the formless realms, as well as the alayavijnana.

I for one believe Garab Dorje's 3 statements as being sufficient enough. Without Direct Introduction there is no path and result. So these other systems have no Direct Introduction, thus no path or result. Seems pretty simple. Then again this board thrives on circular thinking.

Anyways, I highly recommend that those of you who are conflating tirthika views with dzogchen to please read The Mind Beyond Papers by Elias Capriles as he succinctly and painstakingly details out the differences of views and results. Most gnostic and advaita vedanta "realizations" are simply the formless realms, as well as the alayavijnana.

I for one believe Garab Dorje's 3 statements as being sufficient enough. Without Direct Introduction there is no path and result. So these other systems have no Direct Introduction, thus no path or result. Seems pretty simple. Then again this board thrives on circular thinking.

Elias has another brief write-up titled Transpersonal and Holotropic Delusion on this same subject.

Anyways, I highly recommend that those of you who are conflating tirthika views with dzogchen to please read The Mind Beyond Papers by Elias Capriles as he succinctly and painstakingly details out the differences of views and results. Most gnostic and advaita vedanta "realizations" are simply the formless realms, as well as the alayavijnana.

That sounds REALLY interesting, too bad volume one is like $300!
Sadly, not available through my local library.

To add, Malcolm pointed out to me the other weekend in Santa Fe, which was a wonderful event by the way, that the Rig pa rang shar also states that tirthika non-dual views are untenable in the context of Dzogchen.

Not to mention the fact that the same text rejects 360 different views, the teachings of Adi Śankhara being one of them, with Śankhara listed by name.